RULES/ REGS

e-mail   print   reprint   share   Login to Recommend

Disability Benefits Cutoff Is an ERISA Matter

October 20, 2009 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - An employee cannot move forward with her state law claims a disability benefit plan administrator conspired with an outside doctor to terminate her payments because the issue is completely preempted by federal law, a court has ruled.

Chief Judge Claire V. Eagan of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma rejected claims by plaintiff Robin Cameron that her collusion allegations against Kemper National Services and Dr. Horace C. Lukens were not related to whether she was entitled to continued disability payments because of a psychiatric disorder.   

Eagan ruled that Cameron's state law claims dealt with the management of her plan and the termination of her benefits and therefore were properly handled under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In addition, the court said that Cameron's claims against a fiduciary under ERISA fell within the scope of Section 502(a). Eagan found that AEP and Kemper qualified as ERISA fiduciaries and the claims against them could be treated as ERISA claims so that gave Eagan proper jurisdiction in the matter.

In a related issue, Eagan found that, to the extent that Cameron's claims were not preempted by ERISA, her allegations were foreclosed by Oklahoma's two-year statute of limitations for fraud.

Cameron had received benefits under a plan sponsored by her employer, American Electric Power Services Corp. (AEP).

She charged that the administrator conspired with Lukens, an independent doctor brought in to assess the extent of Cameron's disability, by relying on a fraudulent medical exam. Lukens decided Cameron was no longer totally disabled, and based on that judgment, Kemper cut off Cameron's payments.

According to the court, the Oklahoma Board of Examiners of Psychologists entered a consent order that Lukens had committed ethical violations during Cameron's exam by misinforming her of the rules of patient/doctor confidentiality.

Cameron then filed her lawsuit alleging, among other things, that Lukens's exam was a "sham" and that the defendants, including Lukens's employer, Forest Hills IPA, conspired to keep her from getting continued benefits.

The case is Cameron v. Forest Hills IPA Inc., N.D. Okla., No. 09-CV-0311-CVE-PJC.

Fred Schneyer
editors@plansponsor.com

Sponsored Resource Center

Searching for Retirement Advice

Click here for our video interview with Jon Prescott, Chief Marketing Officer, CPI Qualified Plan Consultants.

Sponsored Resource Center

Retirement Insights

At PLAN DESIGNS 2009, PLANSPONSOR met with Steve Smith, VP, Sales & Corporate Plans Market Leader, Diversified Investment Advisors

Sponsored Resource Center

To advertise here...

...please call Hayward Henderson at 203-979-6195 (m), or click here to send hhenderson@assetinternational.com an email inquiry.
Site Map  About Us  Advertiser Services  Subscriber Services  Terms of Use  Privacy Policy  FAQS  Glossary  Customer Service

Copyright ©1989-2010    Asset International, Inc.    All Rights Reserved. No Reproduction without Prior Authorization

GfJ432Hghb43dfs3dasds4at8